This interview is an excellent example of Edwards in full. shows his policies and much of who he is as a person, a human being, running for President.

If you have the time, I hope you will read it and offer your comments.

Clearly, what follows is better than any sound bite. is Edwards's views in depth, where he has an opportunity to expound. gives interested DKos'ers a chance to become better educated about Edwards, straight from Edwards, not from the flame wars in a thread that contains oft-repeated information and misinformation that, alas, is so prevalent in the blogosphere.

BL: ... to starve the war by requiring shorter stays for American troops, longer intervals between tours, some other things...you're for it?

JE: I'm for it.

BL: You'd vote for it.

JE: I'm for it.

BL: Alright then, do one other thing on this before we leave Iraq to distinguish yourself from the other presidential c...

JE: Can I interrupt you for just a minute?

BL: Sure

JE: You did that very quickly. The Murtha plan that I know about is one that requires American troops not to be sent back for another deployment in Iraq, some of them 3rd and 4th deployments without adequate training, without adequate equipment - is that what you're talking about?

BL: Yes.

JE: OK. Yes, I'm for that.

BL: Which is just an indirect way to stop the troop surge, true?

JE: Yeah, yeah - it certainly affects the number of troops in Iraq.

This is very clear. Surely THE most unambiguous statement a politician could ever make regarding the Murtha plan, and John Edwards is the ONLY presidential candidate saying this.

This is big folks, possibly the best talking point Edwards Supporters have.

2/27/07

... Neither police nor party officials will comment on what was stolen and whether the break-in was politically motivated.

Office workers reported the break-in to police on Monday. Concord Police Sgt. Mike McGuire said some items were taken, but he declined to be more specific. The assessment was the same from Kathy Sullivan, the chairwoman of the state Democratic Party.

Nobody but us Toledo Political junkes remember that this happened in October, 2004, to the Lucas County, Ohio Dem HQ where computers were stolen that "contained highly sensitive information, including the party's financial information, names and personal phone numbers of hundreds of party members, candidates, and volunteers.

The computers also stored e-mails from candidates that included discussion about campaign strategy."

This is precisely the kind of thing that the Clinton obsessed will simply devour. Wingnuttistan, already crowing about the "scandal" that Tipper likes to do it with the lights on, will just work themselves into a moist froth over a questionable record keeping financial flap that involves the Clintons losing money.

Washington Post: Opposition to Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq remained strong. Two in three Americans registered their disapproval, with 56 percent saying they strongly object. The House recently passed a nonbinding resolution opposing the new deployments, but Republicans have blocked consideration of such a measure in the Senate.

These kind of numbers cannot be ignored. The breakdown among Democrats is in the 90%'s opposing the war and the Administration's handling of it.

The response from the Office of Vice President was refreshingly honest and blunt...

2/24/07

Ara has the video of a Barack Obama rally with some 15 to 20 thousand very enthusiastic supporters in Austin, Texas. Impressive crowd. What his advance people lack in experience, cash and infrastructure (and he's getting more good people every day) his supporters make up in enthusiasm.

Obamania, Obamanon, catch it. It's a wave, and anyone who worries that he's peaking too soon might be on to something,

Obama's in a weird place and is going to get squeezed from both ends. Hillary and her "vast" network and practically unlimited cash will hammer him from above while Edwards and Richardson (who I think gains most from Vilsack's departure -- as do those closer to the scene) will keep the pressure on from below.

I don't see Iowa or New Hampshire changing much. I know it's early, but these States have been staked out since Thanksgiving, 2004. Edwards owns Iowa and Hillary will get NH and little if anything can change that dynamic in my book.

In between is Nevada, and Hillary has the professionals in place along with Harry Ried, who IS Nevada politics. Richardson is next door and will make a good showing, and Edwards has the Union infrastructure in his pocket. If anything tells me that Hillary has a structural superiority in Nevada, it's Rupert Murdoch's Fox News being tapped to run the Nevada Democratic primary debate -- recall that Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Hillary last summer which raised more than a few eyebrows. The Nevada State Democratic Party holding hands with News Corp. is proof that politics makes the strangest bedfellows.

Interesting that according to PoliticalMoneyLine, Friends of Hillary is the only presidential campaign Murdoch's contributed to -- not one GOP presidential contender. Jim Talent and Harold Ford, Jr. were also notable beneficiaries of Murdoch's largess.

Whither Obama at that point? NV's caucus hurts him, helps Richardson, and plays into Hillary's hands. (Come on folks, the fix is in. Just because Harry Reid took on the Vegas mob, doesn't mean he didn't learn a thing or two from them.) If NV weren't in play Obama wouldn't need to spend efforts making it a 4-way/3-state 1st week instead of a three-way/2 state 1st week primary.

NO upside for Barack there. He can't afford to be embarrassed in NV -- he needs 2nd or a real strong 3rd, but won't win it unless he spends a disproportionate amount of effort there. (And a Nevada win by Barack can be ignored easily by the pun-idiot-ocracy.) What's left is surprising everyone and stealing New Hampshire from Hillary.

That will take a fortune, and Hillary is much more charming in the one-on-one retail politics game of NH than on the stump. The question -- is Barack?.

Hillary, rather than Edwards, is the target. If Edwards and Obama try to compete for the left side of the party, the two populists will let Clinton look too professional, too competent as she stays above the fray. She has to be brought down for Obama to succeed. (And if you're reading this, you are by definition part of the blogosphere, a high intormation voter, and do not count when adding up the average voter's preferences.)

She also cannot be allowed to split the liberal base between the boys -- but I think the base has already done that for her. She would have no hope against a combination of Edwards and Obama supporters. Now she can pick them off individually.

S.Carolina is next, with home-boy Edwards and Hillary sucking up the oxygen. Richardson will be DOA and broke by then. Hillary already made a great strategic move there by getting the endorsements of several black leaders who supported Edwards last time around -- stealing from both her potential rivals.

Obama has to survive until Super Tuesday. With CA and FLA moving up their schedule, Obama is gonna need a king's ransom to compete in the big states or he's toast.

It's all about the ad buys Super Tuesday, and if Barack Obama doesn't have one clear win in the first 4, (and if the only win is NV, he better have a 2nd place finish in all the rest) he's not going to gain any traction with donors for the big contests.

At the Austin rally, Obama urged the crowd to make $5-$10 contributions so he wasn't beholden to the big money guys. That sounds great, but he needs more zeros on the ends of those checks -- and that means more potential Geffen incidents. So far, only Edwards is effectively tapping the netroots through Act Blue -- a resource for those small donations that Howard Dean proved can add up to an effective tool.

Obama needs to take Hillary out of NH. If He can win there -- and if he really works that state, he can -- Hillary goes into S.C. with no wins, or only NV in the first 3 contests.

Make the expectations game work against her. She's expected to win NH and NV, but Obama needs one of them going his way instead of Edwards' -- who would then go "home" to S.C. with not just Iowa (which he's running away with) but another State which will "prove" Edwards' credibility as a winner -- peaking at just the right time. Obama's break-point is New Hampshire -- a must win for him that the other two can afford merely a respectable showing.

On the other hand, S.C. is "must win" for Edwards and has enormous expectations there. If a guy named "Barack" can beat the home team, Edwards is (again) a bridesmaid. A Hillary win can be chalked up to her deep pockets as long as Edwards is within a couple of percentage points -- but it will still hurt.

Either Barack or Edwards will be done after South Carolina. Unfortunately, the shift of Edwards' supporters to Obama (or visa-versa) will not be in time to hurt Hillary on Super Tuesday if one or the other doesn't bow out before the S.C. contest, but folds immediately after. Classic DLC triangulation.

April 7 is the next reporting date, and Obama (and Edwards) are going to need to show they're on track to get at least $15-$20 million in the bank by July 7th's 2nd quarter reporting date just to afford a staff through New Hampshire. If they can't, big donors will stay away cuz they won't see the candidate making it. To compare Vilsack's staff was costing $500-K a month. and has nothing to show for it but debt. A winning campaign will need even more.

That big money coming this spring is where they'll find enough extra cash to get on TV and stage events like the one in Ara's video a couple of times each week in the fall.

If you feel that an unstated premiss of all this requires the belief that Hillary Clinton is unstoppable -- you're right. She is indeed beatable, but at the same time she is unstoppable even if she comes in third in every contest before Super Tuesday -- and will keep on going after that. She won't stop no matter how badly she does. That's how formidable I believe her organization and resources are.

She's ready for Super Tuesday right now. Everyone else will have to work for it.

Slate.com: The WSJ[behind the paywall] fronts a look at the "latest remarkable political reincarnation" of former U.S. darling Ahmad Chalabi. He was appointed to a new post to help maintain support for the security crackdown. Chalabi will be helping residents get reimbursement for any damage caused by the crackdown. The position is limited, and the paper makes clear that "it is to early to tell how much power" he'll have but Chalabi is, of course, already talking about getting involved in other areas.

Waddaya think! Am I on to something? It jibes perfectly with the neo-con motto: If at first you screw things up, wait long enough and things will get so bad nobody will notice you're trying the same things over and over and over.

But where, you might ask, will Santa Chalabi get all the cash he'll need to buy off Baghdad citizens? No, Virginia, he's not going to raid his oil ministry. That inconsequential portfolio he gets to dole out only to friendly megacorporations -- and they have better accountants than those working in the Green Zone.

Where can we steal more money to toss into the abyss in Messopotania? Good question! Glad to see you've been paying attention and already know that the Iraqi government doesn't have any revenue stream -- and there's just no way they're going to try and send another couple of plane loads of 363 tons of cash over there.

Okay, maybe I'm being optimistic there. Who am I kidding? They probably still have regular shipments with direct flights from the US Mint straight to Baghdad.

But like any good crime syndicate, they have a backup plan to launder their money. Who else would come to the rescue but one of the original war salesmen, Paul Wolfowitz? You just knew you didn't hear the last of him, and there was something more than suspicious when Mr. "Iraqi Oil Will Pay for This" was put in charge of the World Bank.

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz may appoint a new resident director for Iraq soon, a move that sources inside the Bank say could contradict the institution's policies on engagement in conflict-stricken areas and put his role in the 2003 U.S. invasion back into the limelight.

The move by Wolfowitz, the former number two official at the Pentagon and a main architect of the U.S.-led war, likely means the Bank would release new loans to the occupied Arab nation, despite the deteriorating security situation and recent disclosures of massive corruption in reconstruction efforts.

"This is exactly what he shouldn't be doing and what the [World Bank] board was initially afraid that he would do, which is to use the financial resources of the World Bank to take some of the heat off the U.S. Treasury and U.S. policy," Bea Edwards of the Washington-based watchdog group Government Accountability Project told IPS. [link]

Sounds like a plan, no? Remember, they don't seem incompetent and Iraq hasn't become Hell on Earth because they have no plan. That IS the plan. Wolfi only changed his tune and said the war would be "bloody ... very long and ... very expensive" a month after the World Bank and UN pulled out the the country.

A statement by al-Maliki's office gave no reason in announcing the dismissal of Ahmed Abdul-Ghafour al-Samaraie, head of the Sunni Endowments. Al-Samaraie, whose organization cares for Sunni mosques and shrines in Iraq, had joined other prominent Sunnis in criticizing the government's handling of the case. (…)

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the chief U.S. military spokesman, said the woman was admitted to a U.S.-run medical facility Sunday and was released the next day. He refused to divulge details of her medical treatment or examination for privacy reasons, and said she left the hospital with her medical reports.

Caldwell also told reporters that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, ordered an inquiry into the case and appointed an investigating officer who already has begun collecting information on the allegations.

Protecting rapists is not what we are sending out children to die for. THIS is not what we are bankrupting our treasury for.

The word "outrage" seems inadequate. We cannot possibly be expected to support an Iraqi government that won't even permit a rape investigation to go forward.

Inconceivable.

The writing is on the wall now. In any kind of accountable, representative government, this would be the end of the Prime Minister's career.

There is every possibility that is will be the end of the Iraqi government. If there is any justice in the world, it will be. Maliki and all who follow him no longer have any moral authority whatsoever.

Nobody is really buying Vice-Decider Cheney's spin, trying to turn the sour news that Great Britain was was removing troops from Southern Iraq into lemonade -- that this was some kind of indication of how well things were going.

Orwell's finest student wants us to believe yet another corner was turned with Lithuania and Denmark's announcement that their folks were going to bug out too. Purple Fingers For Everyone!

Professor Cole's assessment was unexpectantly blunt: "This is a rout, there should be no mistake."

This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite militias and tribes of Iraq's South have made it impossible for the British to stay. They already left Dhi Qar province, as well as sleepy Muthanna. They moved the British consulate to the airport because they couldn't protect it in Basra. They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night. Raiding militia HQs has not resulted in any permanent change in the situation. Basra is dominated by 4 paramilitaries, who are fighting turf wars with one another and with the Iraqi government over oil smuggling rights.

Cole was also quoted in USA Today explaining that the region is, "really dangerous" and "not under control" despite Cheney's reports from friends who like to joy-ride through the militia infested area, hardly noting the oil we've been trying to "secure" since Kuwait was invaded is getting stolen and sold on the black market.

"This idea that the British could leave because the local authorities have things under control is just completely false." (Cole, HT: Carpetbagger)

If Dick would squirm out of his bunker long enough to sniff the stench of unholy hell his neo-con nightmare unleashed, he'd learn about how adept the insurgents were becoming at shooting down our helicopters and that they've got a new toy -- deadly chlorine gas bombs.

As we "surge" into the house-by-house insanity of Baghdad, the unpatrolled countryside hosts more and more fighters who've left the urban center -- increasing and coordinating their attacks, cutting supply-lines, and shooting down more helicopters.

This is what happens when you use another country to try out your pet ideological theories. Every crank conservative they could find got to test out their idea for the New World Order in Iraq.

In the best traditions of Grover Norquist (still a White House Favorite, who is now tutoring Romney and Rudi), Paul Bremer left the Iraqis with a constitution that gave the government no power to tax, and privatized the oil industry, cutting the government off from it's only other source of appreciable revenue.

The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself.

The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based.

Now let's compare, shall we? The neo-con dream has become a true nightmare, four years into the occupation. That's how long the Marshall Plan lasted -- the fastest period of growth in European history.You can make the argument that the Marshall Plan was not all that legend might have us believe. But is sure didn't hurt, and must be given considerable credit for the successful reconstruction of Europe after WWII.

Let's not forget the Marshal Plan was implemented along with a comprehensive foreign and domestic policy directed by that notorious buster of war profiteers, Harry Truman -- just another "Big Government" liberal Democrat New Dealer.

Japan's post-war recovery was even more impressive than Europe's, termed a miracle by some. Far from the laissez faire economic policy preferred by neo-con doctrine, the Japanese government was highly involved in coordinating the nation's industries.

MacArthur enlisted Professor Carl Shoup to impose a modern, efficient tax system on Japan in 1949 -- including (gasp) a corporate income tax and a value added tax on top of a more efficient income tax. That kind of thing is sacrilege to a conservative.

Forty years from now, I don't think the Iraqi version of Toyota will be erecting any statues of Paul Bremer -- but Toyota honored Carl Shoup -- twice decorated by Emperor Hirohito -- with a $2 million endowment to Columbia.

Okay, maybe Haliburton will build a monument to Dick Cheney -- just so the shareholders can have another tax write-off -- but not in tribute to the prosperity he brought to Iraq.

2/22/07

Now if I wanted to see otherwise intelligent people make completely embarrassing nitwits of themselves, I would have watched the clowns masquerading as attorneys turn MSNBC's wall-to-wall coverage of the Anna Nichole Smith hearing into a circus. What an embarrassing display.

No, I'm a political junkie, into substance and policy, and ...

Hey. (Excuse me for a minute folks.) I said cut it out! I swear if you girls don't behave back there you'll all get time outs. Wonkette, You know how I feel about spreading lies and rumors. You're grounded young lady. No more My Space for a week!

Sorry about that. Where was I? Anyway, you might have known there was an important event in Carson City, Nevada, this afternoon (notice I didn't say Nev-ahh-duh.)

Most of the Democratic presidential candidates were speaking before the AFSCME Union Forum ...

Taylor, I'm warning you. Shut Up! I'm not interested in what Hillary said. Remember, "sticks and stones." Now go stand at the blackboard and write down everything you saw at the candidate's forum.

No Taylor, Obama was not playing hookie. He's an important man and can't be everywhere. Now erase that.

As Democrats, we are very fortunate to have such talent running to represent us. Even Dennis Kucinich gave a good presentation, getting the crowd to cheer along with him, "A President with No Strings" as he twirled to show he was no puppet ...

Now you two leave Mr. Geffen and Hillary alone. ... I know what he said about her, but I'm not his daddy. ... Yes Honey, some of Hillary's friends are just as icky. But they were upset that David is Obama's BFF and not Hillary's anymore. ... Sometimes people get older and they find new friends.

Cordial and professional, the candidates each came out individually and made a two-minute pitch, answered some questions, offered some closing remarks, and left the stage for the next candidate. All of them came out against the Iraq War and for universal health care.

Michele! Now you just keep your little snarky comments to yourself. They certainly were not biting or stabbing each other. Quit causing trouble where none exists. Start acting your age young lady.

The details naturally differed with Biden offering the most comprehensive view of the Iraq problem, how to draw-down now and what to do for the aftermath. Richardson emphasized diplomacy, not surprising for a former UN Ambassador. Edwards, of course, had the most detailed health care plan and was unforgiving in his criticism of the Bush administration's war.

Pamela, that's IT! You cannot just make stuff up and call people awful names. I'm done with you little Missy. I don't know where get this behavior, but it's simply unacceptable. Go to your room and go right to bed -- Right Now. You get no dinner, no TV, and No Playing On The Computer! I'm putting parental controls on your little blog and from now on you're only allowed to write stories about your kittens.

It's a shame most folks never even knew about the Candidate Forum, but everyone will get plenty of chances to get to know the candidates in the next year or so. Too bad there wasn't some controversy or conflict the media and bloggers could blow out of proportion -- just for the sake of getting these events more exposure.

No one has gotten inside the Valerie Plame story better than Murray Waas. No One. There's been a lot of good journalism about a lot of pathetic journalists and Machiavellian politicians in this case.

According to Waas, it ain't over.

If Libby is found guilty, investigators are likely to probe further to determine if Libby devised what they consider a cover story in an effort to shield Cheney. They want to know whether Cheney might have known about the leaks ahead of time or had even encouraged Libby to provide information to reporters about Plame's CIA status, the same sources said.

Remember, one of the charges against Libby is obstruction of justice, that he threw "dust in the umpire's eyes." The perjury, lying about learning Plame's identity from Tim Russert, was just one of the means to put the FBI and Fitzgerald's grand jury off the scent. The investigation, had it not been obstructed, would have lead straight through the Office of Vice President, and stopped at Dick's Desk.

How sad, for us and for history that Fitzgerald didn't get a swat at the Vice Decider in a forum where he couldn't call a questioner's inquiry "hogwash," or that the prosecutor was "out of line," just for asking the hard questions.

Had Cheney testified, he would have been questioned about whether he encouraged, or had knowledge of, the leaking of Plame's CIA status. Sources close to the case say that Cheney would have also been sharply questioned as to why, when presented by Libby with what prosecutors regarded as a cover story to explain away Libby's role in the leak, Cheney did nothing to discourage him.

Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York and a professor at Fordham Law School, said the significance of Cheney's reaction to Libby's version of events depends on exactly what Libby told him and what Cheney knew at the time. "Only Cheney and Libby know the import of their conversation, and as is often the case, each could have even come away with a different impression of what was meant" by what the other said.

"If Cheney was merely showing surprise and interest at what Libby indicating to him he was going to tell investigators, then the vice president is innocent in the exchange," Richman said. "But if he had reason to believe, or personal knowledge, that what Libby was planning to say was untrue then there is good reason to view Cheney's conduct in an entirely different light -- an obstruction interpretation."

Hey, I know what your thinking, this is America and we always give the innocent the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. It should be no different with Darth Vader Dick the Vice Decider.

It should be. But as for me, I'm going to take this moment, this naughty little moment where I envision this giant slug of a man hauled before some trumped-up military tribunal, answering for crimes of treason -- and as a bonus, just as the verdict is read he's handed a summons from The Hague.

DUBUQUE, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards criticized the Bush administration on Sunday for failing to engage directly with Iran to resolve problems with the Iraq war and Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons.

"It's a huge strategic mistake not to be dealing directly with Iran," Edwards told the Associated Press in an interview before a campaign event in Dubuque.

"What we should be doing with Iran, both on the Iraq issue and the nuclear issue, is being much smarter than we're being now. We have tools available to us to engage them."

Examples of duplicity or ineptness abound. Not content with his Feith-based efforts to mismanage his father's Iraq policies, conservative saint, Ronny RayGun is spinning in his grave as "W" dismantles the crown jewel of hisdipomatic efforts, The START treaty, by placing anti-missile defenses on the Russian frontier -- prompting Putin to threaten to withdraw from our nuclear reduction treaties.

Ever since Condi had to cut short her speech about the "Threats of Tomorrow" -- a speech interrupted by planes flying into the Twin Towers and Pentagon -- a speech not about terrorism but anti-missile defense systems, I've been fairly convinced that this current government does not exist to serve the American public, but to increase unrest in the world in order to maximize shareholder dividends of arms industry stocks.

2/18/07

My new favorite blog, Queequeg the Harpooneer, delves into the history books to annihilate the sophistry, distortions and outright lies of Rep. Frank Gaffney (R-Deluded) who not only misquoted Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the House of Representatives, but insists that despite the mis-quote, he accurately described the Great Emancipator's sentiments.

Queequeg indeed harpoons Gaffney. In fact, to truly massacre the metaphor, Gaffney didn't just subject the Congressional Record to a little white lie, but made up a whale of a story when he said Lincoln accused Congressmen who criticize the war are "saboteurs” and should be "arrested, exiled, or hanged."

Thanks to the Melvillian mariner, we know exactly how Lincoln thought, and how he behaved when he felt -- as a Congressman -- that the Mexican-American war was started by President Polk under false pretenses, that Congress had the right and duty to end the war through the power of the purse, and that the administration had deceived the American public by insinuating that it be over in a matter of months, not years.

Lincoln did not mince words in personally attacking a President he believe unworthy of the title Commander and Chief

His mind, tasked beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease.

Again, it is a singular omission in this message that it nowhere intimates when the President expects the the war to terminate. … As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show there is not something about his conscience more painful than all his mental perplexity!

Can you imagine the field day Honest Abe would have had with the current savant occupying the White House.

If you ever needed proof that there's no such thing as ghosts, it's that George Bush hasn't been seen running and screaming out into the Rose Garden, mumbling something about being haunted by a tall ghost in a stove-pipe hat.

2/16/07

Senator John Edwards official announcement of his presidential candidacy with New Orleans as a backdrop was intended to emphasize the core theme of his character and campaign -- a fight against poverty in America.

Indeed, he consistently returns to the idea of creating "One America" to end poverty in our time. We have heard this since the 2004 primaries. It is a cause he has clearly staked out for his own. This is his issue.

Now, despite the best efforts of a radical, right-wing smear to brand this clearly religious man as anti-Catholic or even anti-Christian, Edwards can find common cause with the Christian Churches Together (CCT) who announced the consensus of 36 churches and national organizations on the "importance of evangelism and the need to eliminate domestic poverty."

You can get their entire Statement on Poverty here. Clearly the Edwards campaign should find friends within this organization.

This is a gift, literally, from above folks. CCT spans the universe of American Christian churches -- yes, even Catholics. They've taken five years to reach a ecumenically agreeable mission statement emphasizing the importance of spreading Christ's message and which calls poverty in the US a "scandal."

That's it, they undoubtedly will have much more to say, but after five years of discussion, they felt that these two themes were universal to their beliefs and important enough to launch their organization.

Dr. William Shaw of the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc., declared that poverty in the United States to be a "scandal."

Poverty "will not be redressed without intentional and painful effort by the total U.S. community," Shaw said. "CCT calls the country's conscience to that effort and commits itself to being a part of that redressing."

And they're calling out every presidential candidate to make the fight against poverty a priority. Jim Wallis reports on their agenda.

The next meeting of the church leaders will be in January of 2008, in Washington, D.C., in the heat of a presidential election campaign. In the nation's capitol, the church leaders from across America's theological and political spectrum hope to both re-commit themselves to the mission of eliminating the "scandal" of U.S. domestic poverty and to call upon the candidates from both parties to put poverty near the very top of the nation's political agenda. That, my friends, is a big deal.

For John Edwards, this could be huge. He's been answering this challenge with his words and deeds right along. It is the theme underscoring everything he stands for.

Edwards, August 29, 2006:The number of Americans living in poverty remains unchanged at 37 million. A year ago, the President said we have a duty to confront poverty with bold action, and then he turned a blind eye once again. If the President won't act, I hope the American people will - talk to your church or synagogue or mosque, contact a local charity, anything you can do will make a difference."

For years, liberal and progressive commentators in and out of cyberspace have been calling on ways for Democrats to reach out to the religious. I think they just reached out to John Edwards.

(UPDATE: Also check out Sidney Blumenthal's detailed analysis of the "fog of war" defense Libby has attempted -- instead of just cutting the deal to finger Cheney. Salon's Day-Pass is worth Libby's Cynical Defense.)

Waas interviewed former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) for the National Journal, and explored how Cheney's obsession with intelligence leaks regarding NSA intercepts the day before 9/11 (that were not translated until 9/12), and the VP's demand that Congress be fully investigated, set in motion events that led to the Scooter Libby trial. That trial has elicited evidence confirming prior speculation that Cheney's Chief of Staff was not some rogue actor, but he and others in the White House were following orders from the VP himself:

"They [the administration] would have had a certain exposure to hypocrisy if they hid behind executive privilege" when the Plame investigation began, or if they had fought the appointment of a special prosecutor, Graham said. "It made it politically untenable to avoid having a strong investigation, because they had demanded it of us. With us, they said we should call out the meanest, leanest dogs. The example that they set with us became the boomerang that came around and hit them."

Waas documents Cheney's obsession with clamping down on leaks back to his days in the Ford administration when he wanted to jail Seymour Hersh, while working for the NY Times, for exposing a spy program against the USSR. Even then, Cheney was not above using an intelligence leak to thwart Congressional oversight -- then in the form of the Church Committee's investigation of the CIA's coups, assassinations and domestic spying.

When the Justice Department balked at prosecuting anyone, Cheney adroitly tried to exploit the news report for other ends. He wrote under the heading "Broader ramifications": "Can we take advantage of it to bolster our position on the Church committee investigation? To point out the need for limits on the scope of the investigation?"

Dick Cheney is the epitome of the mindset that places the whims of the White House above anything else -- a law unto itself. This is a theory of executive omnipotence that has given us some 1,100 Presidential Signing Statements directly thwarting any legal checks on the administration's absolute authority, not to mention every major White House scandal other than the Monica Lewinsky saga.

We begin seeing this in the CIA's involvement in Watergate, and the Pentagon Papers exposing our secret, illegal actions in Cambodia and throughout SE Asia. The Church Committee's investigation of these incidents and exposure of others led to more oversight of our clandestine services. I submit that those checks on executive authority coming out of those investigations served us well, even at the height of the cold war during the Reagan/Bush(41)'s era -- a time no less dangerous, more so, than we live in today.

But even with stringent oversight, we saw the hidden black-box that is the intelligence services (How many agencies again? 16? 19? I've lost track.) resulting in negotiating with terrorist enemies -- giving them weapons in exchange for hostages, and the funding of full-scale wars in South America.

Based on this history, I have little doubt that the restructuring of our intelligence services by the current administration, and the concentration of so much of it under the Department of Defense, is merely a continuation of an effort to concentrate the real power in this nation, the unquestionable, unseen, unknown, very well funded, secret power in this nation in the hands of a powerful and ideologically "pure" group.

I know this smacks of the worst of conspiracy theorist thinking, but you cannot have lived the span of years I have, you cannot have been born the very day that the Vietnam War began in earnest under a "surge" ordered by JFK, lived through his and his brother's and MLK's assassinations, the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon, Oliver North, and the grandson and great grandson of a Nazi collaborator rising to the highest office in the land, one via detour through the CIA's directorship while Cheney was White House Chief of Staff -- and not detect an unmistakable smell.

Now let me be clear here. Cheney's is an extreme, absolutist view. There is a balancing act, and the security of the American people is more important than the protection of our intelligence assets -- that's just the way it is. They are volunteering to protect us, and just as importantly, our way of life. But their lives, and more importantly, their mission trumps any "need to know" by the public at large.

What is all too apparent in the revelations of the Libby trial is that the VP's priority is protection of the power structure that he represents, and is largely in control of. To him, that is more more importantthen the lives and mission of our clandestine security forces.

Cheney never hestitated to use an intelligence leak to usurp the legitimate power of a co-equal branch of government in 2002, or 30 years ago. Likewise he was unconcerned about the consequences of exposing an agent or her operation -- an operation tasked with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons -- an operation whose mission this administration has cynically championed to whip up public support for unnecessary wars against Iraq, and now Iran -- yet deliberately undermined to cover-up their misuses of intelligence for their own agenda.

Make no mistake, there is only one logical conclusion about Vice-Decider Cheney's true loyalties. It is not the protection of our form of government. It certainly is not the people risking their lives to protect that way of life -- nor is it the American people. Dick Cheney is only interested in the consolidation of power in his and his personally selected fellow travelers' hands.

If he has deluded himself otherwise, if he thinks he is merely a dedicated public servant working only for the good of his fellow citizens, he truly is mad.

2/15/07

Some days I really wonder if certain conservatives' heads are attached to their necks -- compleately severing the connection between the brain and heart. Witness this soulless conclusion by John Hawkins of Right Wing News.

Maybe there's nothing to this, but, after Edwards made them apologize, if their goal was to do nothing but milk this whole thing for as much publicity as possible, they wouldn't have played it any differently. It's just a theory and given that Edwards had already said he would keep them on, well, getting attention for playing the victim may have looked better to them than keeping their jobs working for a white, southern member of the bleeping patriarchy, as Amanda Marcotte might say.

Is that all it's ever really about for you John, chasing fame and fortune?

He really should know better. If anyone can empathize with the idea that nobody is safe in this mud-slinging environment, it would be someone in Hawkins' position. I mean, it's not like he hasn't been following the story.

Look, it's fantastic that we've got an agreement with North Korea. It never would have happened if John Bolton had his way. (And I thought Feith was the stupidist neocon.)The Editors explain the agreement in depth, and compare this new agreement with where we were before the Bush Administration scuttled the idea of direct talks, resulting in less diplomacy and more underground nuclear explosions.

Since the word is that we could have made this deal six years ago, why didn't we?

BOLTON: This is in many respects simply a repetition of the agreed framework of 1994. You know, Secretary Powell in 2001 started off the administration by saying he was prepared to pick up where the Clinton administration left off. President Bush changed course and followed a different approach. This is the same thing that the State Department was prepared to do six years ago. If we going to cut this deal now, it's amazing we didn't cut it back then. So I'm hoping that this is not really what's going to happen.

Okay John, I'm going to assume that you had a "secret plan" to put North Korea's nuclear genie back in the bottle. That was working so well, wasn't it.

Idiot.

Judge for yourself. I always think a graphic representation helps compare apples to apples, so here is our "new" agreement on the left, compared to applicable clauses in the 1994 agreement on the right. You tell me if the latest "progress" was worth allowing Kim Jong Il becoming a nuclear power -- and if it could have/should have been avoided while Bolton and his neocons played toy soldier on a old Risk board.SCROLL DOWN (Blogger doesn't seem to like my table)

1. The DPRK will shut down and seal for the purpose of eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verifications as agreed between IAEA and the DPRK.

Both sides will cooperate to replace the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants.

Upon receipt of U.S. assurances for the provision of LWR's and for arrangements for interim energy alternatives, the DPRK will freeze its graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities and will eventually dismantle these reactors and related facilities.

The freeze on the DPRK's graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities will be fully implemented within one month of the date of this Document. During this one-month period, and throughout the freeze, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be allowed to monitor this freeze, and the DPRK will provide full cooperation to the IAEA for this purpose.

2. The DPRK will discuss with other parties a list of all its nuclear programs as described in the Joint Statement, including plutonium extracted from used fuel rods, that would be abandoned pursuant to the Joint Statement.

The U.S. and the DPRK will cooperate in finding a method to store safely the spent fuel from the 5 MW(e) experimental reactor during the construction of the LWR project, and to dispose of the fuel in a safe manner that does not involve reprocessing in the DPRK.

3. The DPRK and the US will start bilateral talks aimed at resolving pending bilateral issues and moving toward full diplomatic relations. The US will begin the process of removing the designation of the DPRK as a state-sponsor of terrorism and advance the process of terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to the DPRK.

The two sides will move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.

Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions.

Each side will open a liaison office in the other's capital following resolution of consular and other technical issues through expert level discussions.

As progress is made on issues of concern to each side, the U.S. and the DPRK will upgrade bilateral relations to the Ambassadorial level.

4. The DPRK and Japan will start bilateral talks aimed at taking steps to normalize their relations in accordance with the Pyongyang Declaration, on the basis of the settlement of unfortunate past and the outstanding issues of concern.

Both sides will work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

5. *** the Parties agreed to cooperate in economic, energy and humanitarian assistance to the DPRK. In this regard, the Parties agreed to the provision of emergency energy assistance to the DPRK in the initial phase. The initial shipment of emergency energy assistance equivalent to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) will commence within next 60 days.

Alternative energy will be provided in the form of heavy oil for heating and electricity production.

Deliveries of heavy oil will begin within three months of the date of this Document and will reach a rate of 500,000 tons annually, in accordance with an agreed schedule of deliveries.

The Parties agreed on the establishment of the following Working Groups (WG) in order to carry out the initial actions and for the purpose of full implementation of the Joint Statement:1. Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula2. Normalization of DPRK-US relations3. Normalization of DPRK-Japan relations4. Economy and Energy Cooperation5. Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism

The U.S. will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The DPRK will engage in North-South dialogue, as this Agreed Framework will help create an atmosphere that promotes such dialogue.

The DPRK will remain a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty.

As soon as possible after the date of this document U.S. and DPRK experts will hold two sets of experts talks.

At one set of talks, experts will discuss issues related to alternative energy and the replacement of the graphite-moderated reactor program with the LWR project.

At the other set of talks, experts will discuss specific arrangements for spent fuel storage and ultimate disposition.

Nope, not much difference at all. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster above that Bush and his League of Fools will be gone before Iran gets the bomb.

Now if you kids are done playing games, could you please clean up your mess.

The ongoing lesson of the Blogger flap is not about blogger's rights, or even whether JRE gets elected as long as some democrat does -- because the wingnuts who run this nation must AT ALL COST be defeated (even the sacrifice of a blogger, or even JRE).

We can use this, we don't have to move on as if it didn't happen. 'This was just another example of what happens to people who cross the extreme right wing.

Aren't you tired of seeing them win?

All those lofty goals we've signed on to as supporters of this campaign are for naught if the radical, yet all too powerful fringe righties aren't put into a box. Did you forget what they did to one of their own -- Harriet Meirs?

How many more people must grovel for forgiveness from these arbiters of public discourse who curse them for expressing their views? How many more talented people will turn their backs on public service to avoid the inevitable smears and lies hurled their way? How many more people must suffer death threats from people who 'religiously' read Malkin and watch Hannity -- who smugly stay 'innocently' above the fray?

JRE has exactly the right message, at the right time, and even showed me some integrity with the way he handled this. I hate the result, but it was probably inevitable.

But the real fight is stopping the nutjobs like Donohue, Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh from running this nation further into the sewer for their own personal kicks. JRE just happens to be (one of) the most promising means of accomplishing that end -- more capable than Obama, less of a sell-out than Hillary, more serious than Kucinich, more appealing than Vilsack, and more hair than Biden (who just doesn't know when to STFU).

As far as I'm concerned, Edwards is still the best guy for the job, with the exception of the ridiculously experienced Richardson -- who just doesn't have enough steam to win either the primaries or the general.

So yeah, JRE's the guy, the only guy -- and that doesn't mean I'm settling for the least unattractive candidate -- he really is something special.

But he doesn't walk on water, and even if he wins, those cretins who whine now (even though they run the whole planet) will be even worse when out of power. Remember what they did to 'Slick Willie?' They became a force while sitting on the sidelines, throwing stones, playing poke-the-liberal. They impeached Clinton. We can't even get Dick Cheney under oath.

JRE is better off with progressive bloggers on his side, bringing the swift sword and shield of truth to battle those wingnut extremists, and will need them after he wins -- to watch his back.

But WTF. Where else is a progressive blogger going to go, right?

Don't count on it. Obama isn't just the darling of the traditional media right now, he's been a netroots favorite for years now.

I'm not going anywhere. I've put myself too far into this, committed too publicly to waiver now. But it just got harder to get my friends on board.

So I guess what I'm saying is we shouldn't just act like this never happened, that it was a distraction and we should forget it.

We can use this if we do it right, if we attack the right for their unceasingly intolerance of anybody doing anything that doesn't fit their narrow, cynical world-view.

JRE stood by these women, yet they were still martyred by the right wing zealots. They shouldn't be something we here, on the blog, on all blogs, just move on from.

You don't forget something like this and act like it didn't happen -- because the slime artists surly won't. This will be remembered -- the question is how.

Seize this frame, make it our own -- or they will own us for it.

These women can be a rallying point to help end the stranglehold of the most belligerent and hateful scum of the radical conservative wing of the GOP.

Got it? Can you absorb that battle cry? Put in terms even the radical Christian right can understand -- these bloggers were 'martyred,' 'crucified,' just like Harriet Myers. Those people didn't do that to criminals like Rumsfeld or Feith or Cheney, but attacked the most vulnerable targets while they had their hands tied, just for the sport of it."

2/13/07

Pandagon is down, under a constant barrage of steaming hate and victory (lap) dances. Neverthe less Amanda Marcotte did manage to get a post out today. Since the connection might be dicy at best, I'm going to reprint her latest reaction to resigning as John Edward's blogger.

WARNINGTHE FOLLOWING CONTAINS QUOTES FROM COMMENTERS ON PANDAGON AND HATE E-MAILS SHE RECEIVED THAT ARE VILE AND GRAPHIC.

If you have a strong stomache and are not too easily offended, read on to see the filth that she has had to contend with -- AND HER DEFENSE. Something she wasn't able to do while still working for the campaign.

Click Below to read her latest post.

Our humble apologies, but the site is currently down.

Whenever the site is up, we get slammed and it goes down. I have tosuspend the site until the fervor dies down. In the meantime, here'sthe latest post:

Update: To correct misinformation in the comments,I was not "fired". I offered my resignation and it was accepted.

Because I had the nerve to be critical of the Catholic church'sstance on birth control and abortion---nevermind their politicalopposition to distributing condoms to fight HIV, a stance that hashelped usher thousands and possibly millions to their untimelydeaths---I've gotten a number of letters from people who callthemselves "Christians", as Bill Donohue also calls himself.Chrisitians are people who are supposed to follow the behavior andteachings of Jesus Christ. I mention this, because it seems to me thattherefore, when Christians are contemplating an action that is morallyquestionable, it appears they should consult the Bible before acting.

Luckily, I happen to have a Bible laying around this house, becauseeven though I'm not a Christian, I was an English major, and it isimportant to Know Your Ancient Mythologies if you are reading poetry.And I flipped to this passage that seems to have solid advice on whatto do if you've got some asshole dragging a woman in front of an angrycrowd and yelling, "SINNER!":

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caughtin adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher,this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Mosescommanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they saidto test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as theycontinued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who iswithout sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And oncemore he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, theywent away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was leftalone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said toher, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “Noone, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from nowon sin no more.”

Granted, I don't think criticizing the church for policies that hurtfamilies and even get people killed is a "sin", but my letter writersdo. But I thought I'd bring up this story for two reasons. One, I'vealways been impressed by the subtext of the story. I suspect, strongly,that this story is part of the reason that Christianity was soattractive to women in its early days, because this sort of randommisogynist scapegoating is all too real in a patriarchy,and this story must have touched a lot of women at the time, who wouldbe impressed with Jesus' unwillingness to play into such misogyny. Infact, from everything I understand, much of the history of Christianmisogyny is one 2,000 year long backlash against early female power inthe church.

I'm also impressed by how so many people who claim to follow Jesushave basic reading comprehension problems when they regard this story.(Not all---for instance, some fellow Pandagonians take their faithseriously enough to read the Bible and try to follow its precepts.)From my mailbag:

I pray that I had some small part to play in your "resigning" fromthe Edwards campaign you libelous fraud!

That's from a Vivian Thomas, who also wants me to know that I'm a

worthless hag.

Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupidbitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don't

have to accept that as moral. That's why it's called a religion. Lookinto it.

Frankly, if I were a churchy person, this "Look into it" thing would

insult me, since R.R. from Tallahassee, FL is all but saying thatreligion is his excuse to declare his misogyny "moral" so he doesn'tactually have to think and decide what his morality is for himself.

Amanda,

after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, Ijust had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less,with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correctabout the blank, dead stare, but other than that you're not too bad. Ithen thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) formaking you ugly, but now I'm figuring you're just mad at him for makingyou a woman.